Indeed, Tom. It sometimes makes me cringe when I hear the 'Founding Fathers' used as if they were some monolithic entity that all shared the same view on how the laws should be written. Quite the contrary, in fact. Most don't know that Washington was actually the 15th 'President' following our independence. There were huge disagreements amongst our founding fathers regarding the form of government we should have. Hamilton wanted Washington to be king, for instance.
As far as democracy goes, it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. A fancy name for mob rules. In a constutional republic, the sheep has a gun.
Addressing your despair regarding the state of our Great Experiment...sun goes up, sun goes down, empires rise and fall, all things have a cycle. Unfortunately, I believe we are witness to the decline of an empire. Can't say we weren't warned by people like Jefferson, Franklin and more recently Eisenhower with his mention of an industrial-military complex. Is that Nero I hear fiddling off in the distance?

Dan,
Two points you posit are right on the money, if I understand you correctly.
First, redistribution of wealth to the needy has no place in our Republic.
Whether the needy be the poor or corporations, the wealth is extracted by force from one party and given to another deemed fit by those wielding government's gun. Robbery plain and simple.
Secondly, the Democrats and Republicans are opposite wings on the same bird of prey. The prey is us. Divide and conquer is the most effective strategy to rule over a populace. Ever wonder why we are constantly told a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote?
It would ruin the two-party monopoly on power.

Tom,
I agree. Property tax, gas tax, sin tax, and all the other myriad taxes do not belong in a free society. Perhaps your proposed single tax idea would come in the form of a bill with a base fee to cover common defense and the court system and then check boxes for other things you wish to support such as food stamps or other programs for the less fortunate. My feeling, though, is that these programs would run much more efficiently and effectively on private, local level.

Dan and Tom,
Before ratification of the 16th Amendment, income tax was unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal because it is a direct tax. Direct taxation was one of the reasons the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War in the first place.
By the way, a heavy and progressive income tax is the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto.

Unfortunately, I have to challenge the initial assumption of the need for an income tax.
John and the lumber mill owner agree on a contract.
John provides labor in return for a wage from the owner.
This wage is the fruit of John's effort.
The government decides it wants a bite of that fruit.
It uses the only tool in its arsenal to secure that pound of flesh...force.
If you or I took the fruit of another's labor by use of force it would be called robbery.
When the government does it, it's called income taxation.
How did the government secure funding before the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913?

Agreed, Don.
The inept or evil prosecutor should do time. Preferably the remainder of his life.
I suggest any individual convicted of a heinous crime against his fellow man be given a choice. They can volunteer for execution by hanging, lead pill, or other cheap method or do hard labor in substandard living conditions.
The simple fact that an innocent man can be convicted of murder and executed is reason enough to eliminate the death penalty.

As human beings, we have only two choices with regards to our thoughts and actions.
We can give, which is the source of all good things.
Or we can take, which is where all evil finds its source.
The simplest things we can give one another are a kind thought or a smile.
The greatest is our love.
Here's to wishing you all a wonderful day.

Frederick,
Perhaps they could be accomplished simultaneously. However, one must hack at the root first.
In my mind, the removal of the debt based monetary system is the best placed cut.

Tom,
You will find no argument from me regarding your points addressing waste, inefficiency, and shady use of trust funds. But I believe we are comparing apples to oranges. It's my fault. I should have been more clear.
You are discussing being in debt. As in owing money to another entity.
I'm addressing the manner in which money is actually created and put into circulation.
Two different beasts.
We are currently living under a debt-based monetary system where every dollar created has to be paid back with interest. An example of a debt free monetary system would be Abe Lincoln's Greenbacks.
Perhaps further discussion would best be done in another thread, as I do not wish to hijack your discussion of a fair tax system.

Tom, I applaud your concern regarding fairness in the tax code. However, a truly debt-free monetary system is the first place to start if you are concerned with fairness. The rest can be sussed out afterwards.
Are you familiar with the findings of the Grace Commission? They reported that 1/3 of our income taxes are wasted by inefficiency, 1/3 is not collected due to the underground economy, and the final third goes to pay off the INTEREST on the federal debt. Therefore, zero income tax dollars collected are actually used for any services provided by government.
While I agree the current tax code is anything but fair, I believe you are barking up the wrong tree. We need debt-free money to remove the yoke the international banking cartels have around our neck. Once that is accomplished, we can discuss the fairness of income taxes.